By Steve Goddard
h/t to reader “Phil.” who lead me to this discovery.
In a previous article, I discussed how UAH, RSS and HadCrut show 1998 to be the hottest year, while GISS shows 2010 and 2005 to be hotter.
But it wasn’t always like that. GISS used to show 1998 as 0.64 anomaly, which is higher than their current 2005 record of 0.61.
You can see this in Hansen’s graph below, which is dated August 25, 1999
But something “interesting” has happened to 1998 since then. It was given a demotion by GISS from 0.64 to 0.57.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
The video below shows the changes.
Note that not only was 1998 demoted, but also many other years since 1975 – the start of Tamino’s “modern warming period.” By demoting 1998, they are now able to show a continuous warming trend from 1975 to the present – which RSS, UAH and Had Crut do not show.
Now, here is the real kicker. The graph below appends the post 2000 portion of the current GISS graph to the August 25, 1999 GISS graph. Warming ended in 1998, just as UAH, RSS and Had Crut show.
‘
The image below superimposes Had Crut on the image above. Note that without the post-1999 gymnastics, GISS and Had Crut match quite closely, with warming ending in 1998.
Conclusion : GISS recently modified their pre-2000 historical data, and is now inconsistent with other temperature sets. GISS data now shows a steady warming from 1975-2010, which other data sets do not show. Had GISS not modified their historic data, they would still be consistent with other data sets and would not show warming post-1998. I’ll leave it to the readers to interpret further.
————————————————————————————————————-
BTW – I know that you can download some of the GISS code and data, and somebody checked it out and said that they couldn’t find any problems with it. No need to post that again.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is there a short history of weather stations? My thought is that such stations and the collection and reporting of data with highs and lows, and averages, grew out of local interests. There probably was not an intention to use this in any other way. I doubt climate change studies were on anyone’s mind as the number of stations, the data, and the processing grew in size and complexity. Seventy or 80 years ago such tasks were done by hand and “computers” were (mostly women) folks that sat in long rows in big rooms and did arithmetic.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-age-of-female-computers
Or for a longer read:
When Computers Were Human by David Alan Grier
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691091579/the-new-atlantis-20
I think most of the issues being labeled as corruption, fraud, and the like are off the mark when applied to most of the work. Did we see this in the 1970s when Earth was said to be heading for and ice age? In the last 25 years we have seen those in leadership positions influence the presentation of results (think Gore, Hansen, others ?) using flawed reasoning. On that there seems to be agreement by many.
But, go back in time to 1940, 50, or 60 and pick a weather-data analysis problem and decide how you would solve it with the material and technology at hand.
Remember, it was never intended to be the “end-all” for studying climate change.
No Steven, that’s not what we said, not at all.
We said your earlier accusations of “GISS working hard to make 2010 the hottest year ever” were without merit because you did not justify your statements. There had been no code changes noted to substantiate your insinuations of fraud and manipulation. You were anthropomorphizing unchanged computer code and making up all sorts of implied malfeasance to a non-living machine. Many issues were pointed out, such as you were cherry picking arbitrary six month periods, shifting arguments, such as comparing 2010 to 1998 when the previous record for GISS was 2005, and your deceiving use of chartsmanship in your previous presentation.
Because of the content of your posts I have said that they reduce the credibility of WUWT. Given the apparent lack of critical thinking or following a logical argument as I have just noted in the snark quoted above, I stand by that assessment.
On to this post. You may be surprised that I agree that GISS continually downward adjust older dates. This subject has been covered in detail previously on WUWT and at Climate Audit as John Goetz noted above.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/08/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/
More detail and charts here:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/
I already called out this issue in one my criticisms of your previous threads.
As I noted on the earlier thread I assisted John Goetz in locating some of of the older data at that time.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/#comment-142475
You may also be surprised that I agree the GISS code routines for estimation of trends, which rewrite history are flawed, just as John Goetz pointed out more than two years ago. Yes I think what they do is in error, a known and discussed problem.
Had you not felt compelled to add that nonsensical snark at the end of your post there would be little reason for me to comment in this thread, but you felt compelled to get in a dig, and a completely misguided one.
I will repeat my first criticism of your GISS series in closing.
Probably part of that quote are incorrect. It is probably not accurately documented, but the code has been available long enough that that error is moot.
The GISStimation might not be that big a deal if there were only a few data points missing, but the problem is there are lots of data points missing. As a result we notice the results of GISStemp changing over and over.
And this does not bother you? It bothers the hell out of me.
1) They should be very careful about trumpeting “the hottest evah” until all the relevant adjustments come in, if there are likely to be revisions. But, no, they shout out at the first opportunity. Clearly they think the temperatures are correct immediately.
2) I fail to see how large scale revisions can occur many years later. It boggles the mind.
3) I dislike the fact that all revisions are downwards for later events and upwards for recent ones. That is extremely unlikely.
4) Why, if your assessment it correct, does 1998 get a big revision downwards, but 1997 and 1999 are spared? How likely is that.
I suspect you would like to believe that GISS are honest, so will buy their “revision” line, because the alternative is that it is deliberate deception. I believe that you are being had.
OT but accuweather temp predictions way off massively nearly everyday for the last 5 months like 6-10 degrees C PER DAY ABOVE!
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/86218.html
Anthony Watts says:
August 29, 2010 at 9:44 am
Personally I have no trust in GISS whatsoever. Hansen has blown his agency credibility with his conversion to “activist” by his own admission:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100824_Activist.pdf
“I was about to protest the characterization – but I had been arrested, more than once. And I had testified in defense of others who had broken the law. Sure, we only meant to draw attention to problems of continued fossil fuel addiction. But weren’t there other ways to do that in a democracy? How had I been sucked into being an “activist?”.
This letter might make an interesting post.
Anu said:
“You can’t accuse Nature of being incompetent,
a charlatan, staging a hoax, revising history,or having been arrested.”Fixed it for you. No charge. ☺
My estimate for the start of their warming was 1977, not 1975, but that is not important. What is important is that their entire warming prior to 1998 is faked. And so is warming shown by NOAA and the Met office: satellite data simply cannot see it. What satellites do see is a temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise until the 1998 super El Nino arrives. These oscillations are real and record the ENSO phases in the Pacific, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas for twenty years. There were five such El Ninos during this period. If you compare the satellite temperature measurements with say, HadCRUT3 from Phil Jones, you find that these same temperature oscillations are present in their data as well and can be lined up with satellite observations. But what is different is that the valleys between the El Nino peaks – the La Ninas – have all become much shallower in their curve. This is how they change a horizontal temperature trend into a rising temperature trend to show warming. Same for NASA but NOAA goes them both one better: they stay with the peaks entirely and throw out all intervening La Nina valleys. This transmogrified curve is then said to prove that “anthropogenic global warming” is here and Hansen testifies to it in front of the Senate. What we are dealing with is a massive and long-lasting scientific fraud, one compared to which Climategate is just the tip of the iceberg. And since three organizations are involved it is also a criminal conspiracy and should be investigated. It started in the late seventies and requires that there had to be a synchronizing signal at the time, something like “let’s all follow the peaks and adjust the intervening values as needed.” The first four El Nino peaks do indeed increase in sequence but this is balanced by the valleys in the real temperature curve. But not in what we are shown by custodians of temperature curves. By a coincidence Hansen in the late seventies defined a new method for estimating global temperature change for GISS. He had just resigned from the Pioneer Venus project and joined GISS because, in his own words, “The composition of the atmosphere of our home planet was changing before our eyes…” A detailed description of his method of temperature analysis has never been published. Clearly an accounting is needed of how these temperature curves came into existence. They should not be used for any temperature analysis for which alternate satellite temperature measurements exist.
Who uses GISS data anyway?
what will Nature say? And I’m not talking about the publication. – Anthony
Nature will say the following:
“There were many, many signs for you to see that it was high time you started transitioning towards a sustainable society. But you decided to listen to the people who said what you wanted to hear instead of choosing the best and most rational path ( like this guy did) You had your chance to do what was necessary. You didn’t. Now I will do it for you. You will not like it.”
And when I say “the people who said what you wanted to hear”, I mean the people who run this blog.
REPLY: Signs are funny things, depending on how they are displayed, people often interpret them different. Some people ignore signs that they deem inconvenient, like Gore and hurricane frequency (see the Katrina 5 year post). So, actually, we are in the business of saying what you don’t want to hear, Günther, or is it “Nevin”? – Anthony
Paul Vaughan said on August 29, 2010 at 2:01 pm:
People in need of a good laugh. Apparently. 😉
Steven:
“GISS recently modified their pre-2000 historical data, and is now inconsistent with other temperature sets.”
You persist in misrepresenting the record. Giss have NO HISTORICAL DATA. They import data from GHCN, USHCN, and SCAR. Then they process that data according to an algorithm and publish results. Those results have changed and will continue to change as the result of several things:
1. the processing error that Steve Mcintyre caught. IF they didnt fix this people would scream.
2. The missing data issue which John Goetz discusses. John did REAL WORK on this issue. Read John’s work.
3. If new data or revised data is put into any of the data sources.
There are real concerns with the science of global warming. Real uncertainties and real data manipulation/cherry picking issues. The issues you raise about GISS are a distraction from the real issues. They divert people’s time and attention away from the real issues. They are issues that people like John, SteveMc, JeffId and others have looked at long long ago and put to bed. Its GOOD that we put some of the spurious issues you raise to bed so that people focus 100% of their attention and doubt on the real issues. It’s good to put your spurious issues to bed so that we can focus on the real issues. Like the issues that Anthony and Dr. Peilke are actually doing REAL WORK on.
I’ll note that to my knowledge ( having searched the FOIA requests made to NOAA and to CRU) that you’ve never joined us on a hunt for real answers to real problems. Other people may enjoy this side show, I’ll pass. I think raising spurious issues detracts from the reputation of WUWT. BTW what’s the ice look like?
Mikael Pihlström says:
August 29, 2010 at 9:53 am
“In twenty years time I think the world will thank “the jailbird” and
curse the Heartland and other disinformation teams.
REPLY: With people like William Connolley helping such efforts at Wikipedia, perhaps, but what will Nature say? And I’m not talking about the publication. – Anthony”
Even if Nature should decide to verify the most hyperbolic projections of the climate alarmists I would hope future humanity would still assume nearly universal revulsion for Hansen and his ilk. If it doesn’t it will mean humanity has lost any capacity for rational self-interest in its own survival and progress.
I have never worked as a scientist but I have always felt that the idea of Science was humanity’s most valuable achievement. The notion of a system to maximize the objectivity of human knowledge has led to the only assuredly “unprecedented” phenomenon we have ever seen. That is the advancement of an unprecedented percentage of humanity to levels of personal well being never experienced in history, or pre-history for that matter.
Admittedly Science has never come close to maximizing the ratio of objectivity/subjectivity but the continuous improvement program that Science provided has led us from a point where the number of people living beyond a subsistence existence was smaller than the percentage of students who ace the SAT to where more than half the human population can be ranked as middle class.
Unfortunately, the only truly “endangered species” in the world today is the “scientist” who is willing to construct their experiment, run it, and let the chips fall where they may. Climate science may be the the most egregious example of this phenomenon, but thanks to things like PNS it is metastasizing at an alarming rate and the cancer that it is, does and will do damage to human prospects that is beyond what anything other than a massive meteor strike or another ice age could accomplish.
I have always maintained that he best of what is “known” by humanity at this point is far from true “knowledge”, but that the pursuit of the ideals of Science was leading us, despite many setbacks, on an approach that was inevitably closer to that goal. That many people doing science seem to have decided that because total objectivity can never be achieved, the quest for ever greater levels of it can be usefully abandoned and personal interests and opinions substituted for it can only lead to chaos and anarchy. When what we “know” becomes, as it increasingly has, a matter, not of rational investigation, but of polling data we will have lost much more than Nature could ever take from us, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves, with an extra ration of disdain for those who led us down that path.
Signs are funny things, depending on how they are displayed, people often interpret them different.
Yes, that’s your art isn’t it, displaying it in such a way that people interpret it differently? I’m already curious how you will display the Arctic non-recovery for people to interpret. Or will you wait for the refreeze to kick in and do your annual ‘look how it’s growing!’-blog post?
REPLY: Well “Neven” have a look at the next Sea Ice News, coming soon and read the graphs yourself. How’s that secret forecast on your secret blog coming over there? – Anthony
From: jeez on August 29, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Strange, I seem to recall people saying the GISTemp code is all fine and dandy. That might not be what you (plural) said, but it has been said by someone before, as Steve stated.
Yes, your contribution was noted here at WUWT:
The helpfulness of your contribution towards that work of John Goetz was fully noted at the time.
🙂
mooloo said:
And this does not bother you? It bothers the hell out of me.
Sure it bothers me. Enough to have written a post about it 2 1/2 years ago:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/09/how-much-estimation-is-too-much-estimation/
On the other hand, it is Hansen who got Congress’ ear, Gore who borrowed Green as his Armor and Fear as his Axe, and The loose cannons found an audience for their interpretation, and we narrowly missed (so far) getting draconian taxes slapped like heavy chains around our necks.
Never forget that this overbearing Agenda is launched on numerous fronts.
GISS is digging the grave of whatever credibility they might have, in ways they might not have anticipated, with these adjustments. For example, suppose for the purpose of argument, that the predictions are true that rising temperatures will result in more hurricanes, floods, malaria, polar bear decline, pestilence, locusts, bad breath, etc. (Yes, I know that these predictions are mostly bunk, but the AGW community is banking on them.) If temperature is not really climbing, then we will not see these associated effects, despite a continually rising GISStemp. This will serve to increase doubt in the temperature-calamity connection.
In order to support a temperature-calamity connection, it will become necessary to “adjust” polar bear counts, tide gauges, hurricane reports, etc. Eventually all of science and economics will have to submit their numbers to AGW commissars for adjustment in order to maintain the party line.
“BTW – I know that you can download some of the GISS code and data, and somebody checked it out and said that they couldn’t find any problems with it. No need to post that again. ”
Nice try. More than somebody checked it out. quite a few software professionals, and people who have been professionally employed as statisticians and data analysts have downloaded the code and checked it out. Some of us have “refactored” the code, some of us have emulated the code in other languages. Some of us ( clearclimatecode) have reported errors and had those errors corrected.
Nobody SERIOUS has ever argued that there are no “problems” with the code. There are plenty of interesting technical issues, but not a single one of those issues is important to the real debate about the uncertainties of global warming. As new data comes into the algorithm the past ESTIMATE will change. This is a consequence of that method. BTW, the independent computations of global warming ( jeffId, myself, others) show higher rates of warming than GISS. Don’t like the answer GISS gives? The most statistically sound approach ( JeffIds and RomanMs) shows the same if not more warming.
Snowlover123 says:
August 29, 2010 at 1:01 pm
GISS should be called the Great Institute for Stupid Scientists.
Did you know the “G” in GISS stands for Goddard ?
I wonder what the psychological explanation is of stevengoddard choosing a pseudonym honoring this “Institute for Stupid Scientists” which WUWT attacks all the time…
MinB says: “Maybe this is simpleminded, but has anyone asked directly what were the changes, when were they made, and why?”
GISS made some major revisions in 2001/2002 and they documented the changes in Hansen et al (2001):
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
And again in Hansen et al (2006):
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
And they continue to document changes at their website:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/
Smokey says:
August 29, 2010 at 1:51 pm
I’m glad to see you’ve picked up the HTML strike tag and unicode smiley face in the many months since I’ve first seen your Comments.
Great journeys start with the smallest of steps – I’m sure you’ll learn plenty about climatology in the next 30 or 40 years.
Excerpt from: Steven Mosher on August 29, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Excerpts from John Goetz’s guest post mentioned above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/08/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/
Sure sounds to me like John Goetz is saying GISS is changing the historical record. Assuming the data at GHCN, USHCN, and SCAR isn’t being changed by GISS, then it appears John Goetz is saying GISS is changing their own historical record, which, going by what you’re saying, was assembled with data from those other sources.
If you’re going to heap blame on Steve Goddard over this issue, you should be giving John Goetz an equal share as well.
Anu
NASA has lots of good scientists. You know, the ones who study space.
A few years ago someone posted over at Climate Audit : “If the present refuses to get warmer, the past must become cooler.”
This seems to be the fundamental axiom of climate science.
Mikael Pihlström says:
August 29, 2010 at 9:53 am
“[…]In twenty years time I think the world will thank “the jailbird” and
curse the Heartland and other disinformation teams.”
Wait. So you think that stuff that Hansen produces there is “information”? In other words, you BELIEVE that 1998 was slightly colder than 1934 when Hansen says so, and later, when Hansen makes it a little colder than 1998, you believe him again? And now, you believe that 1998 got colder than it really was?
Look, Mikael, the past doesn’t really work that way. Once something has happened, it has happened. It doesn’t change after the fact. Simple concept really once you get used to it.